8.  On 17 October 1994 the applicant, who was born in 1937 and had been on early retirement since 1989, applied for disability benefits under the Social Insurance Act (Lagen om allmän försäkring, 1962:381; hereinafter “the 1962 Act”). He claimed that he had extra costs following an operation on his intestines in September 1994 due to, inter alia, an increased consumption of fluids.
9.  By a decision of 28 December 1994 the Social Insurance Office (försäkringskassan; hereinafter “the Office”) of the County of Stockholm rejected the application, finding that the applicant’s costs were not such as to make him eligible for benefits.
10.  The applicant later made a new application, which was rejected by the Office on 8 February 1995.
11.  The applicant appealed to the County Administrative Court (länsrätten) of the County of Stockholm. On 16 May 1995 the court rejected his appeal. The court did not hold an oral hearing nor did the applicant request one.
12.  Following the applicant’s further appeal, the Administrative Court of Appeal (kammarrätten) in Stockholm, by a decision of 17 November 1995, refused him leave to appeal.
13.  On 5 December 1995 the applicant made yet another application for disability benefits. On 3 April 1996 the application was rejected by the Office, which again found that the applicant’s costs did not attain the required level. The Office had at its disposal three medical certificates issued by different physicians. They expressed differing opinions on the applicant’s need of extra consumption of fluids, two of them considering that there was no such need and the third one stating that the applicant was recommended, from a surgical point of view, an increased consumption of, for instance, mineral water.
14.  The applicant appealed to the County Administrative Court. In a decision of 23 July 1996 the court noted that the issue in the case was whether the applicant’s extra costs attained the level required for a disability allowance under the 1962 Act. Finding that the medical evidence in the case was inconclusive and did not provide the Court with a sufficient basis for a decision, the court ordered the National Social Insurance Board (Riksförsäkringsverket; hereinafter “the Board”) to submit observations in the case. The Board answered by a letter of 13 August 1996, in which it contested the applicant’s claims. The applicant made observations in reply.
15.  On 16 October 1996 the County Administrative Court gave judgment in the applicant’s favour. Having reiterated that the medical evidence was inconclusive, the court also noted that the calculations of the applicant’s extra costs made by the Office and the applicant himself were very close on either side of the level required for entitlement to a disability allowance. In these circumstances, it gave the applicant the benefit of the doubt and granted him an allowance. An oral hearing was not requested by the applicant, nor did the court hold one of its own motion.
16.  The Board appealed against the judgment to the Administrative Court of Appeal and submitted a medical certificate from a further physician, who stated that an increased consumption of fluids was necessary due to the applicant’s handicap but that there was no particular need for mineral water. On 2 April 1997 the appellate court granted the Board leave to appeal.
17.  By a letter of 23 April 1997 the applicant requested the appellate court to hold an oral hearing in the case. He did not state any reasons for his request. On 15 May 1997 it was rejected by the court. After having restated section 9 of the Administrative Court Procedure Act (Förvaltningsprocess-lagen, 1971:291; hereinafter “the 1971 Act”; see further paragraph 25 below), the court gave the following reasons:
“Having regard to the subject-matter at issue and the information that has come to hand in the case, [the court] finds that an oral hearing is unnecessary and rejects the request to that effect. [The applicant] is invited to state the further circumstances he wishes to invoke and submit his final written observations in the case within two weeks after having been notified of this decision.
The case can be determined notwithstanding a failure to submit such written observations.”
18.  The applicant reiterated his request for an oral hearing on 22 May 1997. He now stated that he wished to be heard in person about his working conditions and the costs of his consumption of fluids. Further, representatives of the Board should be heard about the applicable levels for entitlement to and calculation of disability allowances.
19.  On 24 June 1997 the Administrative Court of Appeal rejected the applicant’s renewed request for an oral hearing and gave judgment in favour of the Board. Thus, it quashed the County Administrative Court’s judgment and confirmed the Office’s decision of 3 April 1996. Without giving any further reasons, it considered that the information in the case did not show that the applicant met the conditions for a disability allowance.
20.  The applicant appealed to the Supreme Administrative Court (Regeringsrätten). He requested that the case be referred back to the Administrative Court of Appeal for re-examination or, alternatively, that the Supreme Administrative Court confirm the County Administrative Court’s judgment. He complained about the lack of an oral hearing in the Administrative Court of Appeal and also requested the Supreme Administrative Court to hold an oral hearing.
21.  By a letter of 28 July 1997 the Supreme Administrative Court informed the applicant that it did not normally hold oral hearings and gave him the opportunity to complete his appeal in writing.
22.  On 26 August 1997 the Supreme Administrative Court refused the applicant leave to appeal.